Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
2d 107
From the allegations it appears that the disbarment proceeding resulted from a
public charge by the petitioner that the Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme
Court accepted a bribe to influence or control the Court's decision in an appeal
pending before it in which the petitioner represented the appellant. No appeal
from the final order of disbarment was taken to the Supreme Court of the
United States. The effect of the petitioner's allegations is that the Supreme
Court of Colorado, in the disbarment proceeding, refused to receive the
evidence of the truth of the allegation of bribery which the petitioner submitted
'It is not for this Court, except within the narrow limits for review open to this
Court, as recently canvassed in Konigsberg v. California, 353 U.S. 252, (77
S.Ct. 722, 1 L.Ed.2d 810), and Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S.
232 (77 S.Ct. 752, 1 L.Ed.2d 796), to sit in judgment on Louisiana disbarments,
and we are not in any event sitting in review of the Louisiana judgment. While
a lawyer is admitted into a federal court by way of a state court, he is not
automatically sent out of the federal court by the same route . The two judicial
systems of courts, the state judicatures and the federal judiciary, have
autonomous control over the conduct of their officers, among whom, in the
present context, lawyers are included. * * *'
With respect to the prayer for damages, it is clear that in the disbarment
proceeding the Supreme Court of Colorado was acting within its statutory
power, and the proceedings were within the jurisdiction of that Court. This
Court has said in a number of cases that judges, when performing their official
duties in matters within their jurisdiction, are immune from liability for
damages for any alleged violation of the Civil Rights Act. Kostal v. Stoner, 10
Cir., 292 F.2d 492, cert. Denied 369 U.S. 868, 82 S.Ct. 1032, 8 L.Ed.2d 87;
Spriggs v. Pioneer Carissa Gold Mines, Inc., 10 Cir., 251 F.2d 61, cert. denied
356 U.S. 950, 78 S.Ct. 914, 2 L.Ed.2d 843; Ryan v. Scoggin, 10 cir., 245 F.2d
54. See Bottone v. Lindsley, 10 Cir, 170 F.2d 705, cert. denied 336 U.S. 944,
69 S.Ct. 810, 93 L.Ed. 1101.
Affirmed.